All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C, D, E, and F (Defendant C: fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant D, E, and F: each fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts is a game product that has been opened or altered and provided to A. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant G was guilty on the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the appeal by Defendant C, D, E, and F, the above Defendants’ act constitutes aiding and abetting the act, the benefits derived from the instant crime are not significant, the operating period is not long, and the Defendants are committed all of the instant crimes.

However, according to the circumstances such as the fact that the instant game room business crime was committed on a systematic basis by the participation of many persons, including the said Defendants, and the quality of the crime is not good in light of the method of crime, the degree of participation by the said Defendants cannot be deemed to be less severe; Defendant D, E, and F had the record of having been punished for the same kind of crime; Defendant C has the record of having received a disposition of suspension of indictment due to the same crime; Defendant C has the record of having received a disposition of suspension of indictment; Defendant C’s act of running the illegal game room business is necessary to eradicate severe harm to society, such as promoting speculative spirit, and thus need to eradicate the liability of the said Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the above Defendants, there is no special change in circumstances that the original judgment and the punishment are different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. As to the appeal by Defendant G, the allegation of mistake is erroneous.